Supreme Court in V.S.R. Mohan Rao v. K.S.R. Murthy (2025 INSC 708): Mere Allegation of Land Grabbing Insufficient Without Ownership Proof

.        Written by -Sangita patel 

 Allegation of Land Grabbing Insufficient Without Ownership Proof

Case Title:

V.S.R. Mohan Rao v. K.S.R. Murthy & Others
Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 708
Bench: Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice K. Vinod Chandran
Date of Judgment: May 15, 2025

Facts of the Case:

• The appellant, V.S.R. Mohan Rao, claimed ownership over 252 square yards of land in Saroornagar Village, Ranga Reddy District, Telangana, based on a registered sale deed dated 27 March 1997.
• He built and resided in a double-storied house on this land.
• The respondents, successors of the original landowner, argued that this portion formed part of their 555 square yards of land in Survey No. 9, which they purchased back in 1965.
• They alleged that Mohan Rao had encroached on their land and was a land grabber under the Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982.
• The Special Court ruled in favour of the respondents. The High Court affirmed it, prompting an appeal to the Supreme Court.

Legal Issues:

1. Can a person be presumed to be a land grabber solely on the basis of an allegation without proving prima facie ownership?
2. What is the standard of proof required under the A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act to shift the burden to the accused?
3. Does adverse possession apply as a valid defense when no evidence is presented to support it?

Court's Observations 

• Presumption Under the Act Requires Prima Facie Ownership:
  The Supreme Court held that under Section 10 of the A.P. Land Grabbing Act, the burden of proof initially lies on the complainant. A presumption of land grabbing only arises after ownership or lawful possession is prima facie established.

• Discrepancy in Survey Numbers:
  The appellant’s title deed referenced Survey No. 10, but the disputed land was located in Survey No. 9, as confirmed by a court-appointed commissioner. This supported the respondents' claim.

• No Valid Adverse Possession Claim:
  Mohan Rao claimed that he had been in adverse possession of the land. However, he provided no evidence about the start or length of that possession, rendering this defense invalid in the eyes of the Court.

• No Mens Rea Needed for Land Grabbing:
  The Court clarified that criminal intent (mens rea) is not a requirement under the A.P. Land Grabbing Act. Even unauthorized occupation, if proven, is sufficient.

Final Judgment:

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, ruling:

“The allegation of land grabbing by itself does not give rise to the presumption; the presumption arises only when prima facie ownership is established.”

• The appellant failed to prove lawful ownership or adverse possession.
• The Court upheld the findings of the Special Court and High Court.

Impact of the Judgment:

• Prevents misuse of land grabbing laws through baseless claims.
• Strengthens the requirement of documentary proof for land ownership.
• Clarifies the burden of proof standard under special land laws.
• Reinforces the importance of land survey clarity and proper registration.

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court's ruling in V.S.R. Mohan Rao v. K.S.R. Murthy reaffirms a critical principle: Allegations without evidence are not enough. In land dispute cases, documented ownership must first be established before any legal presumption of land grabbing can arise.

This judgment sets a valuable precedent for courts across India, especially in cases involving unclear or overlapping land records.